Cactus
Member
Ironbarr,
You mean like in 1988 when he got 0.47% of the vote?
Obviously, not too many found it interesting!
You mean like in 1988 when he got 0.47% of the vote?
Obviously, not too many found it interesting!
Gov. Howard Dean / Rep. Ron Paul in 2004?
- Thread starter w4rma
- Start date
- Status
w4rma
member
…
It should come as no surprise that the most insistent voice in opposition to that vision should come from a New Englander with family ties to Wall Street. Howard Dean has labored in politics to make government work; bringing health care coverage to Vermont children has been one of his signal accomplishments. In signing Vermont's civil union law, he honored the wall between church and state. At the same time, he has always been aware of the need to keep Wall Street happy by making sure government's fiscal house is in order.
Dean may resemble most of all the Rockefeller Republicans of the old East Coast establishment, who would be aghast at the way the Bush administration has pillaged the Treasury and robbed the government of the power to do good works.
…
Dean and the Voice of Vermont
It should come as no surprise that the most insistent voice in opposition to that vision should come from a New Englander with family ties to Wall Street. Howard Dean has labored in politics to make government work; bringing health care coverage to Vermont children has been one of his signal accomplishments. In signing Vermont's civil union law, he honored the wall between church and state. At the same time, he has always been aware of the need to keep Wall Street happy by making sure government's fiscal house is in order.
Dean may resemble most of all the Rockefeller Republicans of the old East Coast establishment, who would be aghast at the way the Bush administration has pillaged the Treasury and robbed the government of the power to do good works.
…
Dean and the Voice of Vermont
Balog
Member
The government isn't the freakin' Tooth Fairy! It isn't supposed to run around like Robin Hood "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor."
w4rma
member
Rep. Ron Paul's list of acts in which the government should not be involved.
…
The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.
More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:
…
The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.
More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:
- They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
- They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
- They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
- They express no opposition to the welfare state.
- They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
- They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.
- They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
- They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
- They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
- They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.
- They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
- They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
- Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
- 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
- They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
- They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
- They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.[/list=1]…
The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.†This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.
…
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm
w4rma
member
The Appeal of Howard Dean
SEVERAL YEARS AGO an obscure Democratic governor from the politically inconsequential state of Vermont was the guest speaker at a Cato Institute lunch. His name was Howard Dean. He had been awarded one of the highest grades among all Democrats (and a better grade than at least half of the Republicans) in the annual Cato Fiscal Report Card on the Governors. We were curious about his views because we had heard that he harbored political ambitions beyond the governorship.
Dean charmed nearly everyone in the boardroom. He came across as erudite, policy savvy, and, believe it or not, a friend of free markets--at least by the standards of the Tom Daschle-Dick Gephardt axis of the Democratic party. Even when challenged on issues like environmentalism, where he favored a large centralized mass of intrusive regulations, Dean remained affable.
"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.
He left--and I will never forget the nearly hypnotic reaction. The charismatic doctor had made believers of several hardened cynics. Nearly everyone agreed that we had finally found a Democrat we could work with. Since then, I've watched Dean's career with more than a little interest and we chat from time to time on the phone.
…
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp
SEVERAL YEARS AGO an obscure Democratic governor from the politically inconsequential state of Vermont was the guest speaker at a Cato Institute lunch. His name was Howard Dean. He had been awarded one of the highest grades among all Democrats (and a better grade than at least half of the Republicans) in the annual Cato Fiscal Report Card on the Governors. We were curious about his views because we had heard that he harbored political ambitions beyond the governorship.
Dean charmed nearly everyone in the boardroom. He came across as erudite, policy savvy, and, believe it or not, a friend of free markets--at least by the standards of the Tom Daschle-Dick Gephardt axis of the Democratic party. Even when challenged on issues like environmentalism, where he favored a large centralized mass of intrusive regulations, Dean remained affable.
"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.
He left--and I will never forget the nearly hypnotic reaction. The charismatic doctor had made believers of several hardened cynics. Nearly everyone agreed that we had finally found a Democrat we could work with. Since then, I've watched Dean's career with more than a little interest and we chat from time to time on the phone.
…
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp
Zundfolge
Member
Here's an interesting thought; lets say hypothetically that the Dean/Paul ticket where to win.
How long do you think Dean would remain alive?
There are a lot of people in this country sick enough of liberals to start killing them, and with someone like Ron Paul in the first seat of succession, the temptation for some to off ole Howie would just be too darn great.
Keep in mind I'm not advocating assassination of Mr. Dean (or anyone else for that matter) ... I just think it would probably happen (and frankly America might end up better off for it).
How long do you think Dean would remain alive?
There are a lot of people in this country sick enough of liberals to start killing them, and with someone like Ron Paul in the first seat of succession, the temptation for some to off ole Howie would just be too darn great.
Keep in mind I'm not advocating assassination of Mr. Dean (or anyone else for that matter) ... I just think it would probably happen (and frankly America might end up better off for it).
RocketMan
Member
Should this hypothetical exercise ever come to fruition, what John Nance Garner said comes to mind.
While he wasn't entirely correct, there is some validity in his statement.
While he wasn't entirely correct, there is some validity in his statement.
Thumper
Member
Hey n4rma, posting your "what neo-cons are generally understood to believe" list twice in the same thread doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
Tam, to his credit, microbalrog has demonstrated time and again that he's (evidently) not overly concerned with his credibility.
Tam, to his credit, microbalrog has demonstrated time and again that he's (evidently) not overly concerned with his credibility.
w4rma
member
A whole lot of Libertarians, liberals and conservatives disagree with you, Thumper, and agree with Rep. Ron Paul's description of neo-conservative beliefs.
Thumper
Member
A "whole lot" of people believe that man has never set foot on the moon.
Your "whole lot" doesn't even begin to meet your claim, linguistically, of a "generally held belief."
Wishing it doesn't make it so.
Stood 10 feet from Dr. Paul two weeks ago and listened to him speak. Your magical thinking assertions that he might run with Dean
are farcical.w4rma
member
Then prove Rep. Ron Paul wrong, Thumper.
IMHO, there is a whole lot of information on the PNAC site that backs Rep. Ron Paul's description:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
For instance, I ran a search on the PNAC site for the word "empire", here:
http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=2557452&pid=r&mode=ALL&query=empire&SUBMIT=Find!&t=s
IMHO, there is a whole lot of information on the PNAC site that backs Rep. Ron Paul's description:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
For instance, I ran a search on the PNAC site for the word "empire", here:
http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=2557452&pid=r&mode=ALL&query=empire&SUBMIT=Find!&t=s
Thumper
Member
Ah...the inconsequential fringe.
Dean/Paul in 2004! You should send that in to Mad magazine, they have a page for that kinda stuff.
Good luck with that.
Dean/Paul in 2004! You should send that in to Mad magazine, they have a page for that kinda stuff.
Good luck with that.
w4rma
member
Poll: Bush Slipping
Iraq, Economic Problems Level the ’04 Playing Field
Oct. 14— Persistent criticism on the economy and his Iraq policy alike are clouding President Bush's political standing, creating vulnerabilities that combine to lock the incumbent and an unnamed Democrat in a dead heat for the 2004 vote.
An ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll finds that nearly six in 10 Americans — a new high — call U.S. casualties in Iraq "unacceptable," more than double its level when Baghdad fell last April. Bush's approval rating for handling terrorism more broadly, while still high, now matches his career low. And most continue to disapprove of his handling of the economy, a critical election-year benchmark.
There are newer troubles as well: More than eight in 10 continue to see the alleged White House leak of a CIA operative's identity as a "serious matter," and the number who think the administration is fully cooperating in the investigation has declined to 39 percent. About two-thirds still favor appointment of an outside special counsel to look into the matter.
…
All told, 17 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they'd vote today for Dean, 13 percent for Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri, 12 percent for Clark, 10 percent for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, 9 percent for Lieberman, 6 percent for former Illinois senator and ambassador Carol Moseley Braun, with the remaining three candidates under 5 percent. (The race is essentially the same among registered voters and unleaned Democrats.)
…
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Politics/iraq_economics031014_poll.html
Nope. Not "fringe" and IMHO Rep. Ron Paul is exactly correct about the neo-conservatives.
Iraq, Economic Problems Level the ’04 Playing Field
Oct. 14— Persistent criticism on the economy and his Iraq policy alike are clouding President Bush's political standing, creating vulnerabilities that combine to lock the incumbent and an unnamed Democrat in a dead heat for the 2004 vote.
An ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll finds that nearly six in 10 Americans — a new high — call U.S. casualties in Iraq "unacceptable," more than double its level when Baghdad fell last April. Bush's approval rating for handling terrorism more broadly, while still high, now matches his career low. And most continue to disapprove of his handling of the economy, a critical election-year benchmark.
There are newer troubles as well: More than eight in 10 continue to see the alleged White House leak of a CIA operative's identity as a "serious matter," and the number who think the administration is fully cooperating in the investigation has declined to 39 percent. About two-thirds still favor appointment of an outside special counsel to look into the matter.
…
All told, 17 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they'd vote today for Dean, 13 percent for Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri, 12 percent for Clark, 10 percent for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, 9 percent for Lieberman, 6 percent for former Illinois senator and ambassador Carol Moseley Braun, with the remaining three candidates under 5 percent. (The race is essentially the same among registered voters and unleaned Democrats.)
…
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Politics/iraq_economics031014_poll.html
Nope. Not "fringe" and IMHO Rep. Ron Paul is exactly correct about the neo-conservatives.
Thumper
Member
Heck...with Ron's votes you now have a total of 17.047%.
Oh but wait...now we have to subtract the Dean supporters that wouldn't abide Paul as a running mate. Lets be conservative (little c) and say, oh, 15% of registered Dems.
Heck...you've got 2.047%
Eeek, now we have to subtract the Paul supporters who won't vote for Dean...I'd put that at .047 percent of registered voters per '88, plus whatever percentage you personally represent.
I put you and yours at about 2.0000000001%
Fringe...
When asked what percentage of the vote he garnered in 1988, Paul replies, "I came in third."
Funny guy.
atek3
Member
I know a few "l" libertarians (myself not among them) who would cast a vote for Dean before Mr. "I love big government/empire" Bush. I told them that was hypocritical because they gave me flak for voting Simon over Davis, they agreed and apologized for the flak-giving.
If Dean and Paul ran, that would be a pretty exciting election, certainly more than bushgore for prez 2000.
atek3
If Dean and Paul ran, that would be a pretty exciting election, certainly more than bushgore for prez 2000.
atek3
This Dean/Paul running hypothetical makes as much sense as the Republicans disagreeing w/ the Dems during the Clinton administration, and then deciding to form a coalition w/ the communist or green party. Regardless of the animosity between the Dems and Repubs at that time, this just didn't happen...nor would it ever have.
It doesn't make much sense to drop your affiliation w/ people who share most of your beliefs, to join up w/ a group that shares none of your beliefs.
It doesn't make much sense to drop your affiliation w/ people who share most of your beliefs, to join up w/ a group that shares none of your beliefs.
I can't fathom why so many people think we have to vote for a "a big government, anti-capitalist, Welfare State, tax-'n'-spender", to use Tameras words, because a "a big government, anti-capitalist, Welfare State, tax-'n'-spender" paired with Ron Paul would be worse!
That's just silly. With a Dean / Paul ticket, at least one of the people is a small government, pro-capitalist, anti-welfare state, anti-taxes guy.
What have the republicans got to offer? Pro-big government, anti-capitalist, pro-welfare state, pro-tax increases (and if you think Bush cut taxes, you're deluding yourself. A tax cut paid for with debt is not a tax cut, its just shifting the taxes to later.... which means really its a tax increase cause you have the cost of the debt added on top of it when you pay it back. Furthermore, with the budget busting growth of the government under Bush, we've had massive increase in the amount of taxes we're going to have to pay. You cannot cut taxes without cutting the budget... and anyone with basic capitalist free-market economics understanding should see that. TANSTAAFL!)
OH, and on top of all of that, Bush is just as anti-gun as Howard Dean. In fact, if it weren't for his father, we'd not have the 1994 AWB (which was originally an executive order signed by Bush 1).... furthermore, Bush 2 has enacted new gun bans under the AWB while he's been in office. I'm not aware of Howard Dean enacting any gun bans, though I don't like his position statement on the issue.
So, in summary who's got the correct policies?
Taxes: Libertarians are the only party that wants to cut taxes and spending.
Welfare: Libertarians are the only party that wants to cut welfare.
Second Ammendment: Libertarians are the only party that supports it.
Capitalism: The Libertarians are the only non-socialist party.
Government Size: The libertarian platforms central goal is to shrink government to the point that income tax is not necessary.
Frankly, I would be surprised if any of the republicans here actually supported that last one...
So, if you want socialism, vote republican. IF you want socialism, vote Democrat.
IF you want the constitution, gun rights, and all those other things you claim to want, you have only one choice. Vote libertarian.
How long do you have to be screwed by the Republicans before you stop taking it?
That's just silly. With a Dean / Paul ticket, at least one of the people is a small government, pro-capitalist, anti-welfare state, anti-taxes guy.
What have the republicans got to offer? Pro-big government, anti-capitalist, pro-welfare state, pro-tax increases (and if you think Bush cut taxes, you're deluding yourself. A tax cut paid for with debt is not a tax cut, its just shifting the taxes to later.... which means really its a tax increase cause you have the cost of the debt added on top of it when you pay it back. Furthermore, with the budget busting growth of the government under Bush, we've had massive increase in the amount of taxes we're going to have to pay. You cannot cut taxes without cutting the budget... and anyone with basic capitalist free-market economics understanding should see that. TANSTAAFL!)
OH, and on top of all of that, Bush is just as anti-gun as Howard Dean. In fact, if it weren't for his father, we'd not have the 1994 AWB (which was originally an executive order signed by Bush 1).... furthermore, Bush 2 has enacted new gun bans under the AWB while he's been in office. I'm not aware of Howard Dean enacting any gun bans, though I don't like his position statement on the issue.
So, in summary who's got the correct policies?
Taxes: Libertarians are the only party that wants to cut taxes and spending.
Welfare: Libertarians are the only party that wants to cut welfare.
Second Ammendment: Libertarians are the only party that supports it.
Capitalism: The Libertarians are the only non-socialist party.
Government Size: The libertarian platforms central goal is to shrink government to the point that income tax is not necessary.
Frankly, I would be surprised if any of the republicans here actually supported that last one...
So, if you want socialism, vote republican. IF you want socialism, vote Democrat.
IF you want the constitution, gun rights, and all those other things you claim to want, you have only one choice. Vote libertarian.
How long do you have to be screwed by the Republicans before you stop taking it?
Moparmike
Member
Don Galt, I like your summary. I dont know how many "Brainwashed Republicans" would like it though.
greyhound
Member
Personally, I don't care if Howard Dean ran with the ghost of Ayn Rand, he's still a leftist and wouldn't get my vote.
I have never, and will never, vote for a candidate based on their VP/running mate.
w4rma, I do respect your passion for your choice - and I agree that he's the least offensive of the Dems on guns, but somehow I just can't get past the feeling that he'll be a UN loving / world opinion means everything/ its our fault leftist on the WOT.
And that may play with the hard left right now, but past the primary it won't with middle America.
At least he isn't a Kucinich with his ludicrous "Department of Peace" and "US out, UN in tomorrow" nonsense; Dean at least realizes Iraq is something we have to deal with. Nonetheless, I still think he'd yank us out and put the UN in, just not "tomorrow" like Kucinich.
I have never, and will never, vote for a candidate based on their VP/running mate.
w4rma, I do respect your passion for your choice - and I agree that he's the least offensive of the Dems on guns, but somehow I just can't get past the feeling that he'll be a UN loving / world opinion means everything/ its our fault leftist on the WOT.
And that may play with the hard left right now, but past the primary it won't with middle America.
At least he isn't a Kucinich with his ludicrous "Department of Peace" and "US out, UN in tomorrow" nonsense; Dean at least realizes Iraq is something we have to deal with. Nonetheless, I still think he'd yank us out and put the UN in, just not "tomorrow" like Kucinich.
ROTFLMAO
Oh dear... folks are startin' to look at me funny, I was fallin' over laughin' for about 2 mins. My belly hurts!
What a hoot! Dear god Zundfolge, we oughta hang out. When I'm back in CO I'm gonna look you up.
Funny guy indeed, not as funny as Zundfolge's stuff, but funny all the same.
******************************************************
Oh... and were Dean to run with Paul... I'd consider voting for'em.
The principle disagreement between me and the Libertarians is their isolationism. I know history too well to be an isolationist.
'Course... all Howard Dean (or any presidential candidate with a snowball's chance in hell) would have to do to get my vote is: promise to repeal the USA PATRIOT Act. Bush beats Gore. Bush beats Dean (I fear the Theocrats less than the Socialists). Bush... might have trouble fightin' a Dean/Paul combo. Now a Bush/Dean combo... Hmm..... naaah it'll never work.
I find I've more in common philosophically with the right than the left. The Left is mostly Socialist in ideology, the Right, is misguided often, and lacks the long-term "compromise, but always compromise in our direction" skills that the Left has.
[conspiracy]
Maybe Dean is the Libertarians' secret weapon...
"We'll sell him as a Democrat, he'll slowly build his credentials within' the Democrat community, win their trust, then win the presidency, and then he'll begin by destroying every anti-constitutional law ever passed!!!!"
Who says Libertarian's can't form a conspiracy?
[/conspiracy]
-Morgan
Oh dear... folks are startin' to look at me funny, I was fallin' over laughin' for about 2 mins. My belly hurts!
What a hoot! Dear god Zundfolge, we oughta hang out. When I'm back in CO I'm gonna look you up.
Funny guy indeed, not as funny as Zundfolge's stuff, but funny all the same.
******************************************************
Oh... and were Dean to run with Paul... I'd consider voting for'em.
The principle disagreement between me and the Libertarians is their isolationism. I know history too well to be an isolationist.
'Course... all Howard Dean (or any presidential candidate with a snowball's chance in hell) would have to do to get my vote is: promise to repeal the USA PATRIOT Act. Bush beats Gore. Bush beats Dean (I fear the Theocrats less than the Socialists). Bush... might have trouble fightin' a Dean/Paul combo. Now a Bush/Dean combo... Hmm..... naaah it'll never work.
I find I've more in common philosophically with the right than the left. The Left is mostly Socialist in ideology, the Right, is misguided often, and lacks the long-term "compromise, but always compromise in our direction" skills that the Left has.
[conspiracy]
Maybe Dean is the Libertarians' secret weapon...
"We'll sell him as a Democrat, he'll slowly build his credentials within' the Democrat community, win their trust, then win the presidency, and then he'll begin by destroying every anti-constitutional law ever passed!!!!"
Who says Libertarian's can't form a conspiracy?
[/conspiracy]
-Morgan
Dilettante
Member
I can barely believe this.
I thought the fundamental issue was not guns themselves, but self-defense.
Whatever you like to call the recent war in Iraq, it was so close to self-defense that it's hard for me to believe that people here would vote for someone like Dean.
Ron Paul didn't even seem to like clear-cut self-defense in Afghanistan.
Am I missing something?
I thought the fundamental issue was not guns themselves, but self-defense.
Whatever you like to call the recent war in Iraq, it was so close to self-defense that it's hard for me to believe that people here would vote for someone like Dean.
Ron Paul didn't even seem to like clear-cut self-defense in Afghanistan.
Am I missing something?
fallingblock
Member
I wouldn't vote for A leftist like Dean....
if Larry Pratt was running as his V.P.
Wait! Maybe there is some truth to Zundfolge's assassination theory...?
Naah! Not even then
if Larry Pratt was running as his V.P.
Wait! Maybe there is some truth to Zundfolge's assassination theory...?
Naah! Not even then
cloudkiller
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2003
- Messages
- 134
Wait a minute!!!!
The government isn't the freakin' Tooth Fairy! It isn't supposed to run around like Robin Hood "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor."[/QUOTE]
One point of contention that EVERYBODY seems to miss. The goverment isn't robbing from the Rich to give to the Poor.
The government is robbing from the middle class, to give a little to the poor, in order to appease them while the rich get richer. They also use this technique to keep the middle class suspicious of the poor while the true robbers are doing better every year!
The accumulation of wealth by a smaller and smaller group of individuals in this country in recent history has been unparalleled. With all this regulation you would think that they would be getting poorer! Heck no! They are starting wars to give multibillion dollar contracts to each other! Meanwhile the % of the tax burden born by business is a fraction of what it was in 1950!
The government isn't the freakin' Tooth Fairy! It isn't supposed to run around like Robin Hood "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor."[/QUOTE]
One point of contention that EVERYBODY seems to miss. The goverment isn't robbing from the Rich to give to the Poor.
The government is robbing from the middle class, to give a little to the poor, in order to appease them while the rich get richer. They also use this technique to keep the middle class suspicious of the poor while the true robbers are doing better every year!
The accumulation of wealth by a smaller and smaller group of individuals in this country in recent history has been unparalleled. With all this regulation you would think that they would be getting poorer! Heck no! They are starting wars to give multibillion dollar contracts to each other! Meanwhile the % of the tax burden born by business is a fraction of what it was in 1950!
Balog
Member
cloudkiller: classic Bolshie class-warfare rhetoric. The top earners in this country pay most of the taxes. IIRC, the top 1% pay something like 37%. Yeah, that's "robbing from the middle class."
- Status
